/m/hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Dawson was borderline, and pretty much everyone acknowledged this - the voters who put him in did so only after rejecting him for 8 years. At the time I thought he deserved to go in, but these comments make me rethink that.

Andre Dawson is not fit to stand in judgement of Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. My preference for the HOF is not to totally throw out a character clause. It's OK if used to help decide borderline cases, but the primary factor in HOF cases should be the greatness of the playing career.

1 month, 2 days left for the writers to get over themselves and serve the purpose of honoring greatness, or turn the HOF into a joke.

A HOF class that leaves greater talent sitting below the 75% line while inducting lessor talents is a joke. It reminds me of the Bill James article back in one of the abstracts, where the owners of the Padres are given a chance to bring back any player of all time. Instead of choosing among Ruth, Wagner, Mays, Williams, Mantle, Aaron, they go with Danny Thompson.

Pretty much everything a player does on the field is done for money. That outfielder diving to make a catch, the scrappy little infielder hustling down the line trying to beat out an infield single. The homerun hitter who hits one more homer than the best previous slugger. All of these guys are doing it for the money.

I suppose you could argue they are doing for the pure love of competing in the sport. But this could just as easily be true for the slugger as it is for the hustling infielder.

To me the interesting part is how he infers that the 7 time MVP will probably get in but the seven time Cy Young winner won't. Is it a hitter over pitcher preference?

“Bonds probably will eventually. I think there are lot of writers where somewhere along the lines they will switch gears and he will get in, but these other two guys (Clemens and Sosa), I don’t see it.”

Separately, most of these current Hall of Famers would do better to go with "No comment" or some version of "The voters have done very well in the past (hey, they elected me, didn't they) and I trust they will continue to take the process very seriously." While we might laugh at the second choice, it is a nice empty statement not likely to come back to haunt them like the sanctimonious crap some are spewing.

Oh no they weren't. Records were broken, not rules. People might be less upset if rules were broken but records weren't.

the rules were broken in a sense

Oh, those rules.

Was Dawson mentioned in the Cocaine scandals of the 80s? I seem to think that Raines was, and may be bringing him by association.

If memory serves, Raines gives some credit to Dawson for helping straighten him out.

However I do have a Dawson-"drugs" story which is a bit prophetic of today's world. Waiting in line to get into the bleachers, the players arrive and a bunch of folks rush off to get autographs. Some time later this woman in her 20s comes storming back, ######## that Dawson, after signing many autographs, refused her (and others) with the lame excuse that he had to go get ready for the game. She insisted he was on drugs (seriously, she went on and on about it), hiding his coke-reddened eyes behind his famously endorsed shades.

Now we all know it was roid rage.

Pretty much everything a player does on the field is done for money.

Of course Dawson was the guy who gave the Cubs a blank contract in the fight to choose to play where he wanted to. On the other hand, he was briefly the highest-paid player in the game.

But I will defend Dawson's desire to play to my grave. He gave one of my all-time favorite answers. Asked why he dove for a ball (risking injury) when the Cubs were ahead something like 10-0 in the 8th inning, Dawson (with derision in his voice that such a stupid question was being asked) simply replied "Because it was in play."

There was also the "get hit in the face, come to, try to kill Eric Show" incident and the Davey Martinez broken leg HR incident ... I have zero doubt that Dawson took his baseball very seriously.

Dawson's only flaw as a player was that he didn't walk.

At the time I thought he deserved to go in, but these comments make me rethink that.

Why? If steroid use isn't disqualifying, being a moralistic blowhard or potential hypocrite certainly shouldn't be.

On his Bonds vs. Clemens -- yeah, I'm not sure what his thinking there is. Maybe that Bonds stood out even more than Clemens who had Maddux, Johnson and Pedro for competition? Or maybe just that Bonds has the HR record and Clemens doesn't have any important records? Or, more likely, he paid less attention to the AL and doesn't realize Clemens won 7 CYA.

Why? If steroid use isn't disqualifying, being a moralistic blowhard or potential hypocrite certainly shouldn't be.

I can agree with that. If the HOF is a relevant enough institution to honor both Bonds and Dawson I'll be happy.

Of course Dawson was the guy who gave the Cubs a blank contract in the fight to choose to play where he wanted to.

True. It is my understanding (though verifiable facts on this never came out) that Bonds offered similar terms after the 2007 free agent market produced no bidders for him. Unfortunately Bonds' collusion siutation did not have a happy ending.

“When I see records being shattered left and right for selfish reasons, just to make more money, that’s when I have a problem with it.’

Bonds: "When I see players making the Hall of Fame who, in their biggest year (1987), hit .246/.288/.480 on the road, and they are saying I shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, that's when I have a problem with it".

I've served in elected office, and one of the rules in a legislative body is that you debate until you have the votes. As soon as you have the votes, shut the #### up and vote. Once you get the vote to go your way, don't gloat. Shut the #### up.

Andre Dawson is one of the worst HOF selections in recent history, and should not be a member. There is absolutely ZERO reason for Dawson to start passing judgement on who should or should not be in the HOF. You've got your plaque, Andre...please go fishing.

Methinks you're not paying attention to recent history. One can certainly make a case that Dawson doesn't belong (depending on the size of one's HoF) but compared to the recently selected Perez, Puckett, Rice, Sutter, Gossage and possibly Morris (not to mention some VC selections like Cepeda, Maz and Fox), he looks pretty good.

Dawson also has the advantage of an excellent peak with 36 WAR from ages 23 to 28 when he was an excellent defensive CF. That's not an extra double-super amazing peak or anything (i.e. obviously not enough on its own) but, for that age range, it's comparable to Kiner, Mize, Ripken, Thomas, Simmons, Reggie and Bench. (Minor note: Bench had as many PA as Dawson in that age range so it's not a playing time artifact). Of course those are cherry-picked to Dawson's best stretch.

By the way, the latest version of WAR puts Dawson just over 60. He's got as many WAR as McCovey, a smidgen more than B Williams and Winfield, ahead of Killebrew and Stargell. He's 2 wins shy of Alomar and 3 shy of Murray. I don't know how he ranks relative to other HoFers but fWAR gives him about 2 more wins than bWAR. They have him identically pegged on defense (he comes out at essentially 0 dWAR), the difference being how replacement value is calculated.

I'm guessing money wasn't the biggest reason Bonds took steroids. I also don't know why Bonds would get in and Clemens would not. Both basically sustained 8 WAR levels from their early 20's to their 40's. Bonds got a little better as he aged, but Clemens' best years were in his first few (with the exception of 97). I agree that Sosa probably won't make it as he voters will say he likely wouldn't have put up HOF numbers without steroids. You can't say that about Bonds or Clemens.

When I see players making the Hall of Fame who, in their biggest year (1987), hit .246/.288/.480 on the road

Depends on what you consider his biggest year. In 1981, Dawson hit .351/.393/.649 on the road; in '83, it was .322/.351/.615.

Don't get me wrong - I do not think his 1987 MVP season was his best season, by a long shot. I'm saying many people perceive it to be his best year. He was a hell of a player with the Expos.

My point above is not that he was a better or worse selection than, say, Gossage or Puckett. Rather, no matter what you think of Bonds and PEDs, he is obviously one of the greatest players of all time. Just as Bill James once said that you could split Rickey Henderson in half, and you might have two HOF players, I would say you could split Barry Bonds career in half, and have two HOFers:

1986-1999: Exactly 2,000 games played, OPS+ of 163, 3 MVPs, four other times in the top five for MVP
2000-2007 (when the numbers got video game weird): 986 games played, 317 HRs, OPS+ of 221, 4 MVPs, and a 2nd place finish.

Forget taking steroids. If he friggin died after 1999, he'd still be a first ballot HOFer. I have a ton of respect for Dawson, who by all accounts was a leader, standup guy, heck of a baseball player, fun to watch, etc. But I say, you just stay out of this stuff, and if you get asked by the media, you just say something like, "Hey, I'm not a voter. I'm honored to be in the Hall of Fame, and I'm hopeful and confident the writers will sort this all out over time."

Bonds had a 160 career WAR, so if you split him in three you'd have three Mike Cameron's, which is a little bit short of the HOF. Babe Ruth on the other had about 190 as a hitter and pitcher, so if you split him in three you'd have three Ryne Sandbergs, which is sort of a HOFer I guess.

Hall of Famers who take a decade to get there and then try to pull the ladder up once they're in are kind of pathetic characters.

Right, and expressing his opinion on steroids and the HoF is "trying to pull the ladder up". Now if he comes out about how Maddux and Johnson and Bagwell and Biggio and ... don't belong in the HoF you might actually have a point.

I don't agree with Dawson's take on PEDs and the HoF but you may have noticed it's a pretty common opinion.